MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. I'd like to begin with two
announcements. One, the President appreciates the strong showing of
support in the House and the Senate that is shaping up for what appears
to be the final votes on the resolution to authorize the use of force
against Iraq. The President hopes that this vote will send a strong
message to Iraq and to the world that if Iraq does not comply with the
United Nations resolutions, the United States and her allies are
prepared to use force to make certain that Iraq does comply, so that
the peace can be kept.

In addition, as Congress gets ready to adjourn, the President has
repeatedly urged the Senate to complete its work on the department of
homeland security. We continue to work hard to make that happen. In
the event it does not, the homeland security legislation currently
carries the legislation required to create a commission to look into
what took place on September 11th. The President thinks it is so
important that Congress create this commission, that if they are not
able to work on homeland security, the President hopes they will find
another way to pass the commission and send it to him before they
leave.

We have been working very closely with Senator Lieberman and McCain
and other members on the commission. Great progress has been made and
we are very close to reaching an agreement on it. We look forward to
hearing back from the Senate about the offer that has been sent up to
the Senate on this important matter. The President thinks it would be
a great disappointment to the families and to the nation if the
Congress left without creating the commission on September 11th.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, under the Constitution, Helen, the President,
of course, does have the authority --

Q -- or even with or without allies.

MR. FLEISCHER: Under the Constitution, the President does have the
authority as Commander-in-Chief to make those determinations. The
President has asked -- said he would ask the Congress to weigh in on
this matter, and the Congress is doing so and doing it today. And the
President thinks that will be very helpful in keeping the peace. The
President has made no decisions about what the next step will be.
Clearly, we will continue to talk to the United Nations about the
inspection process, and that's where the matter currently stands.

Q But he would never go back to Congress again for another
go-ahead? I mean, he considers this the green light?

MR. FLEISCHER: The Congress is speaking today about authorization
of the use of force. Today's vote by the Congress is an important
vote.

Q Ari, on that commission you just mentioned, is the President
supportive of the idea that the intelligence agencies, intelligence
community would also fall under the review of that commission?

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, the commission would have a broad range of
issues to look into and intelligence would be included, of course.
They would build upon what was already done, but it would include
intelligence, just as the President said when he wrote to the Congress
about this matter a couple of weeks ago. Beyond intelligence, it would
also include issues dealing with aviation matters, border matters,
things of that nature.

Q So you're not putting anything off-limits to this commission.

MR. FLEISCHER: No, the scope would be broad-range.

Q On Iraq, the Iraqi government is taking reporters around to al
Furat manufacturing facility and the Nassr engineering facility. These
were mentioned obliquely by the President Monday night, the White House
released satellite photographs of them, and the Iraqis I guess are
taking reporters around to show that everything is hunky-dory there.
You got any reaction to that?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think that reporters are seeing the same cat and
mouse games get played with themselves, and they walk away scratching
their heads, wondering what it is they just saw and what was
concealed. I think Iraq has shown a 10-year-long history of being able
to take guests into Iraq, having moved facilities around, having mobile
facilities available, hiding information, allowing things to be seen
that only they want to be seen. And so it's very hard, I think, for
anybody, unless they are a real independent expert with the proper
equipment, to walk into a facility and have a clear understanding of
what it is that is either taking place there, used to take there, or
may be taking place on another side of a wall through which they cannot
see.

Q Ari, it's clear from the satellite photos that the White House
provided to us on Monday that there has been new construction at those
two facilities. But do you have any way of legitimately knowing what's
inside those buildings?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the best way to know what is inside those
buildings is either through intelligence, which I will not discuss, or
through the return of inspectors, who have the authority to go into
those buildings any time, anyplace, anywhere, with any equipment and
get their job done.

But your assessment is accurate. The photos that were released
showed the rebuilding of a building. People can make their own
interpretations about what's going on inside those buildings, but the
point is that facilities that were associated with these weapons of
mass destruction that we knew were used for the purpose of creation of
weapons of mass destruction have been destroyed and then these same
facilities rebuilt. The best way to know what's going on is through
the other two means I said.

Q But to your point that Iraq is paying a cat and mouse game
with reporters, you really don't have any legitimate idea what's in
that building, so you can't really say that they're playing a cat and
mouse game, can you?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think if you want to take Saddam Hussein's word
for it, people are free to do that. And his word hasn't proven very
good.

Q Ari, the President in Cincinnati said that if he makes a
decision to go to war, that he would, in the aftermath, support a
unified Iraq, which is a significant statement. So what evidence can
the administration point to now that there is a viable alternative to
Saddam Hussein, an opposition that is capable of leading in his
absence? Especially given the fact that Americans have a lot of
information to chew on about the Northern Alliance as a viable
alternative to the Taliban prior to that --

MR. FLEISCHER: It's a very interesting question, and I think the
easiest way to express it, David, is the President has a universal
faith in mankind that mankind does not want to be governed by despots,
that people are capable of self-government around the world. That's
particularly true in an educated, relatively advanced nation like
Iraq. No people choose to have a leader who engages in the type of
dictatorial, despotic, tyrannical types of actions that Saddam Hussein
has taken.

Another way to say it is when Saddam Hussein has been such a brutal
dictator, he has no shortage of people who would like to see him gone,
and who could do a much better job governing once he is gone. More
specifically then, we will continue, the United States government will
continue to work with people both inside and outside Iraq who have an
interest in advancing the cause of government that is representative of
the people. I don't think anybody thinks that Saddam Hussein is
representative of the Iraqi people.

Q But -- okay, well, tell us about that. What are we doing?
Don't the American people have the right to chew over what the
alternatives are here, and know what the government is doing to pave
the way toward dealing with the aftermath of invasion, should it come
to that?

MR. FLEISCHER: I don't think -- it's impossible to predict with
certainty what type of government would replace Saddam Hussein. It's
fair to say that whatever it is, it will be an improvement. Whatever
it is, it will also represent what the President has said about a
government that represents the people. And that's why there are
various groups, both inside and outside Iraq, who are dedicated to
that.

Q Well, what right do you have to say --

Q What are we doing? What are we doing to work with these
groups to support them?

MR. FLEISCHER: Through the -- okay, through the 1998 Iraq
Liberation Act funds were made available to work with Iraqi opposition
groups. They've been having gatherings to discuss types of government
that could possibly replace Saddam Hussein. There's not unanimity
within those groups about how to proceed, but --

Q But you still don't have any evidence to present to the public
that there is a viable alternative as we stand here today?

MR. FLEISCHER: If you're suggesting that because there is no known
immediate successor to Saddam Hussein, that until one can be known,
Saddam Hussein is a risk that should be left in place, the President
does not agree with that approach.

Q Obviously, I didn't say that. But what I'm asking you is, do
you have anything beyond faith in mankind to tell people that the
government is preparing to pave the way toward an alternative
leadership?

MR. FLEISCHER: It's the issues I mentioned. And also, I think
that it's fair to say if you look at Afghanistan as a model -- and this
is where the -- faith in mankind, don't misinterpret what I'm saying
here, this is something that we hold dearly as Americans, the universal
value that be believe is God-given for people to be free, for people to
have a government that represents themselves, not a government that
controls, not a government that is dominant over them. That is a
powerful force throughout the world. That is a force for freedom and
that is a force for good government.

Saddam Hussein has used his powers in a ruthless manner to oppress
the people of Iraq. And as I said, the President will continue to work
through, and the United States will continue to work through these
groups. And Afghanistan has shown that when despots are thrown out,
there are a great many good people who would like to take their place
and who can make for a better day for the people of that country. That
is the case with President Karzai of Afghanistan and many other people
who participate in the loya jirga there.

Q Can I just ask --

MR. FLEISCHER: Terry, go ahead.

Q -- on the record here, are you then putting the administration
behind a commitment that should regime change happen in Iraq, the
United States will commit to a democracy in Iraq? Not support a strong
man, not support some kind of interim general, but that the United
States will commit to trying to establish a democracy in Iraq.

MR. FLEISCHER: I think if you look at the history of the United
States, and President Bush is dedicated to this, the fact of the matter
is that after a military operation, the United States has been a
marvelous, wonderful force for democracy around the world. That is the
case with Japan, that is the case with Germany, that was the case with
Afghanistan. And while not everything can immediately and fully move
to democracies around the world, and we understand that, the United
States has been a wonderful, powerful force pushing toward democracy
around the world. Central and Latin America are the most recent, now
10-year-long examples of that trend around the world, with the help of
the United States.

Q After a many-decade history where we were not supporting
democracy in that part --

MR. FLEISCHER: You can take that up with many decades ago. But
the point remains the same, and what I said is a government that
represents the people, and the President will continue to push for the
direction of a government that represents the people.

Q Ari, would you expect the votes today in the House will serve
to provide some momentum in any way to the developments within the U.N.
and the efforts to get a resolution there?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President hopes so. The President thinks
that there is a good possibility that Congress, having spoken and
spoken strongly, the American people coming together, and our nation
speaking in one voice, will send a signal to the United Nations and
United Nations Security Council that President Bush and our people are
united in the belief that a strong resolution is the most effective way
to keep the peace, and that the United States and her allies are
prepared to take action if the United Nations will not.

Q And today, what is he doing today, specifically on Iraq? He
spoke with Chirac yesterday. Is he going to reach out to any other --

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, he's been watching -- he's monitoring the
vote and keeping informed about the vote, and we look forward to the
conclusions of the vote. And I'll keep you filled in if there will be
any additions to the President's schedule later on. We're looking at
the timing of what's happening in both the House and the Senate. It
remains unclear I think even to the people who will do the voting,
particularly in the Senate, about what time their vote may take place.

Q Ari, now that the President is sure to get what could be
called a mandate from both Houses on the Iraq situation, does he have a
timetable for the U.N. to issue a new resolution? Or is he just
willing to wait until they come around? Or does he have a time frame?

MR. FLEISCHER: The timetable is exactly as the President said on
September 12th in his speech to the United Nations. The President said
-- he urged the United Nations to act in a matter of days and weeks,
not months. Clearly, now, it's been a matter of some weeks. It is not
yet a matter of months. So it still was in the timetable that the
President originally established.

Q And a second question, Ari. You keep referring to the United
States and its allies --

MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.

Q -- will use force. Well, as far as we hear, allies -- I guess
the United Kingdom is one ally, but do you mean, by "allies" and
"force", do you mean permission for overflights, refueling, use of
bases, or storing weapons? What do you mean -- military help?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think it can be all of the above. The President
has said in many of his public events that the United States and a
coalition of allies will act if the United Nations does not act.

And this is why I've made the point before that this notion of
somehow the United States would do something unilateral is just as
wrong as wrong can be. The only question is will the multilateral
action come thanks to the United Nations, or will the multilateral
action come as a result of a large coalition that the United States
will assemble because the United Nations failed to act? The President
hopes that will not be the case, but he is prepared if that is the
case.

MR. FLEISCHER: The President appreciates Senator Daschle's
decision to vote with the President on this matter.

Q Have they spoken today, or since Senator Daschle's previous --

MR. FLEISCHER: I'll have to go back and ask the President. I
don't know if they've spoken today or not.

Q On the audio tape of Ayman Zawahiri, how concerned is the
administration? Do they see the threats as being credible when he says
that there will be future attacks against the United States? And is
so, is it cause for perhaps raising the threat level? Has it come to
that point?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the FBI last night did issue a notice to law
enforcement communities around the country that as a result of that
audio tape and other information that it was important for local
jurisdictions and authorities to review their plans, to make certain
that all precautions have been taken. The possibility is still,
unfortunately, with us, that there are terrorists -- al Qaeda
terrorists -- who, seeking to regroup, still want to bring harm to the
United States and to our interests abroad. So it is a source of
concern. And that's why the FBI acted.

The alert level remains at its current elevated level. No changes
have been made to it. We continue to review that every day, but within
the current alert status, notices went out to people to say, we have
this information, we do take it seriously, and you need to review your
plans.

Q And on Pakistan's elections, Musharraf calling it a historical
juncture today, but Human Rights Watch out of Asia calling it a
consolidation of military power, not really a move towards democracy.
Also, an independent human rights commission out of Pakistan saying
that this was engineered to show the results basically favoring
Musharraf. How confident is the administration in the credibility of
that process?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we're going to continue to watch the process
very closely. We are committed to remaining engaged with Pakistan
throughout this transition to democracy. In New York, when President
Bush met with President Musharraf, he stressed the importance of
adhering to democracy in Pakistan. It is important and the United
States takes it seriously and will monitor it closely. We welcome the
holding of the multi-party national and provincial elections in
Pakistan today. This is an important milestone in Pakistan's ongoing
transition to democracy. And we welcome President Musharraf's
assurance to the people of Pakistan today that he intends to hand over
executive powers to the new Prime Minister by early next month.

Q Ari, if I can just go back to your statement just a moment ago
that the President would act not unilaterally, but with a coalition;
the only question is, does the coalition have U.N. endorsement or not.
If that's the President's position, does the exact wording of that
U.N. endorsement become less important? In other words, do you
necessarily need "all necessary means" or something, if he's committed
that he can -- he's going to act to enforce it, basically no matter
what the U.N. -- final U.N. resolution says?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President went to the United Nations
because the President thinks it's important for the United Nations to
have a role in keeping peace around the world. That's why he went. He
didn't have to go. He made the judgment and the decision that it was
important for the U.N. that an American President go there and remind
the U.N. about the resolutions that it passed, and the fact that Saddam
Hussein has violated them with impunity, and raised the question to the
U.N., what do you intend to do about it. And he hopes that the U.N.
will not leave that question unanswered.

That's why he chose to go. But the President is also saying that
if he decides to take any further action, it's clear now that it would
not be unilateral, it will be with a coalition. And the only question
is, does the U.N. play a role on that coalition.

Now, on the language that is currently being discussed at the
United Nations, what's important, David -- and the President has
stressed this in his conversations with world leaders, and this is what
our diplomats are focusing on in their negotiations -- the resolution
must describe that there will be consequences if Iraq fails to act. It
must be, the resolution must include that. And the reason for the
President saying that and thinking it's so important is because if it's
not in there, then Saddam Hussein is free to play his games once
again. And the President thinks the best way to keep the peace is for
Saddam Hussein to understand that the world this time is serious.

Within that, there is room for diplomacy about how to exactly
phrase what those consequences are, and that's what the diplomats are
currently working on, the exact phraseology of it. I'm not -- to get
specifically now to your very question, I'm not going to negotiate that
in public, what the exact words could or could not be. Don't take that
as a reading that something may be in or out; obviously, that's
something the diplomats will do and do in private.

Q I'm sorry, if you say that it must describe there will be
consequences, is it sufficient to say there will be consequences? Or
in the President's mind, does the resolution have to describe exactly
what those consequences would be?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President thinks the more clearly the
consequences are stated, and the more -- and the stronger they are, the
better the chance of keeping the peace, because Saddam Hussein will
know that this time the world is serious.

MR. FLEISCHER: Sure. Between now and the election, the President
will have several items on his travel agenda. This will include
traveling around the country to support candidates who support his
agenda. Obviously, with the Congress as closely divided as it is -- a
Congress that has failed to act on a great many priorities for the
American people, including helping the economy to recover and grow by
creating jobs, passage of homeland security -- every vote in the
Congress counts. And so he will spend some time on the road working to
build support for candidates who share his vision.

He also has, of course, a summit with the President of China coming
up at his ranch in Crawford. He will travel to Mexico, where he'll
take part in the APEC Summit of leaders from the Pacific Ocean
countries, including leaders from Japan and China, again, and Russia,
as well as Mexico and Canada and other nations. So the President will
have quite a bit of business to conduct between now and the election.
He'll conduct much of it on the road.

Q But you're not minimizing the fact that he's going to be
pretty much solidly campaigning for his party's candidates for the last
couple weeks running up to the election?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think I just described to you what the
President's agenda is. It consists of travel on behalf of candidates
across the country, a summit meeting with the President of China, an
international meeting outside the country in Mexico and, of course,
other business.

Q Is that the proper thing for him to be doing when he's trying
to prepare the nation for war?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think, particularly -- let me put it to you this
way. In all times, whether our nation is at war or our nation is at
peace, what makes us strong is our democratic process. And everybody,
in both parties, should proudly stand up and participate in our
democratic process.

Q So when's he having a news conference?

Q The FISA court chastised the FBI for misrepresenting a lot of
what they're doing with wiretaps, et cetera. There were 75
occurrences. Now there is a memo that has been -- is in Congress. And
the question is, the President meets with the FBI pretty much every
day; has he decided to take an active interest in this, or is he going
to take an active interest in some of the over-reaches of the FBI?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President has made it clear, and he believes
the FBI is doing this, about the importance of doing two things and
doing the well. One is protecting the American people from the risks
that we face from terrorists who would use our open system to come here
and bring harm to people, and, secondly, to do it within the
Constitution, because it is the Constitution, after all, that
fundamentally gives us our greatest protections. And that is the
challenge that law enforcement faces at all times. And the President
is confident the FBI is doing it well.

Q Somewhat off of Suzanne's question, as America is preparing
for war overseas, how does the White House propose to keep peace and a
prevention of war here as there are threats from Saddam Hussein, if
there is an invasion there? Can we wage war here? Are we going
through homeland security, first responders, local law enforcement?
Are we going through military and first responders? What -- and what
should America do to prepare for this?

MR. FLEISCHER: Again, there is, unfortunately, some recent history
to this issue. And if you go back to 1991 and then go back to 2001
when there has been military conflict that the United States has been
involved in, there were talk about potential consequences at home and,
fortunately, nothing materialized. That's as a result of the strong
military actions that we took, helped negate any possibility of any
operations to harm the American people here and abroad, our buttoning
up of embassies that takes place, other acts of protection that we
engage in.

The office -- the Department of Homeland Security has been working
very closely with local governments and first responders to continue to
harden up America's infrastructure, particularly the critical
infrastructure. And those efforts are continuing.

But it is another remind to Congress, Iraq separate and apart, that
Congress must pass legislation to create a department of homeland
security so we can take every step possible to protect the country.
The various agencies are doing a good job of doing it where they are,
but the President thinks it can be done better. And that's why he
wants the department.

Q But, Ari -- but after 9/11 we've had -- the 9/11 attacks we've
had anthrax, the shooter outside of Washington. You've got a lot of
things going on. How can the average American, let's hit and bring it
home, protect themselves if something were to happen? How would they
go against situations that could happen? I mean, what are we talking
about?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think you're speaking very hypothetically about
protect. And the point I was making is through the first responders
and through the communities that we have, whose whole job it is to be
paid to protect the population, they are working through the first
responders -- local police, local firemen. They have plans that they
work on as a matter of increasing routine to train and prepare for any
eventualities.

But again, I just want to remind you to keep this in perspective.
We have heard previously about if the United States engages in military
action, the likelihood would increase about threats to people here in
the United States. That did not turn out to be the case in either 1991
or 2001. But we are concerned. The risks remain. And, for example,
just last night the FBI put out the notice to law enforcement. But the
message is, really, the American people have hired the law enforcement
community to worry about these issues. And the law enforcement
community is working very hard on those matters.

Q On the subject of the 9/11 commission, Senator Lieberman and
some others on the Hill say that talks with the White House on that
issue have broken down completely as a result of an ultimatum that the
White House issued regarding several points of contention in the
legislation. In particular, the White House demand that the commission
sunset after one year; also a dispute over how many members of the
commission the White House would be able to appoint. Could you respond
to that?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, the talks have been going very well. We have
an offer up to the Hill now. We're waiting to hear back from the Hill
and we hope that this matter can be brought to fruition. There's no
reason that it can't. This issue, the President thinks, is too
important for Congress not to get it done. And we're working hard to
work with the Congress on it. And we expect that we -- there's no
reason that it should be not be successful.

Q Is the White House demanding that the commission sunset after
one year, go out of business?

MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I'm not going to get into any of the public
provisions and negotiate those publicly. I specifically am not aware
of every detail that is being reviewed in it. But it's not surprising
that at the end of a negotiation things like the membership on the
commission, things of that nature -- one of the -- always, every time
I've been involved in any commission legislation in the Congress, one
of the most difficult issues is always the composition and membership
of commissions. You have a lot of people who want to be on
commissions. You have a lot of people who want to make the
appointments to commissions. You have important balancing, to make
sure the commission is representative and doesn't tilt toward any one
party or another. These typically do become last-minute, difficult
issues to be worked through on commissions. The point is none of this
should stop the commission from coming into being.

Q Is it true that the White House issued a take-it-or-leave-it
ultimatum to the senators to --

MR. FLEISCHER: No. This is a two-way street, and we continue to
travel it, and it's important to travel it together.

Q So you didn't issue an ultimatum saying agree to this by this
afternoon or it's over?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I have not heard anything about that, Ken, so I
can't say that we have. I haven't heard that, I don't believe that's
the case.

Q Although it appears the President plans to be campaigning on
the idea that homeland security has not been addressed, Senator Daschle
has indicated he wants to stay in town until that and defense
appropriations and other matters are passed. In addition today, he
announced a four-point plan on the economy, which includes extending
unemployment insurance, providing assistance to states, in addition,
holding an economic summit that has a variety of opinions, not just
those that are in support of the President's agenda. And lastly, his
fourth point was to get rid of the White House economic team and clean
house. And I just wondered if you have a response to that.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think the final point makes clear that this
is

not a substantive proposal by Senator Daschle. This is just more
political posturing at a time when the American people don't want
anybody pointing fingers; they want help to get the economy going.

But you know, it does seem odd to make all these proposals as
Congress is walking out the door. Why didn't these things get done
earlier in the year? Where was -- the economic packages passed
earlier? This is a Senate that hasn't even passed a budget. So it
seems a little late to start talking about economic issues that the
Senate wants to do, when they fail to act on the ones they have before
them right now, and have had for a year.

Q And also, in light of the assault -- the high-powered rifle
assaults that are occurring in the Washington area right now, does the
White House have any position on establishing a national ballistic
fingerprint system that would require gun manufacturers to provide
authorities with spent shell casings that could track or trace the
original gun owner?

MR. FLEISCHER: Let me take a look at that. I'm just not aware at
that level of specificity.

Q You mentioned the summit with the Chinese leader. Can you
comment at all on what the President's expecting out of that meeting?

MR. FLEISCHER: I'll have more for you a little closer to it. The
meeting is some two weeks away. But the President looks forward to
talking about the status of U.S.-China relations, trade between the
United States and China, as a very important matter that has been very
helpful to the American economy. Depending on the international
situation, we'll see what is discussed vis a vis Iraq. I think there
could be a great many matters that are discussed at that meeting. The
President often, when he talks to leaders of China, too, talks about
the importance of religious freedom. That's also a topic that could
possibly come up. We'll see.

Q Thank you. On another topic, tomorrow there's going to be a
very large Christian Coalition pro-Israeli rally. Does the White House
plan to participate or send any message to them?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's the first I've heard about it, so I don't
know. I'll take a look into it.

Q If you can come back --

MR. FLEISCHER: I'll be sure to look out the window.

Q A moment ago you praised Senator Daschle's speech on the
floor, but just after he came off the floor he told reporters that he
was not confident that the administration would not view the Iraq
resolution as an absolute green light. Now, if there can be degrees of
a green light, is there anything you could say to him to suggest that
his concerns are unfounded?

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not sure what that means, about shades of green
lights. The fact of the matter is, the United States Congress will
have spoken rather emphatically today to authorize the use of force
against Iraq if the Commander-in-Chief decides that that is a step that
needs to be taken to protect the country and to preserve the peace. So
Congress is expressing its opinions today, and the President
appreciated the Senator's vote.

Q Would you consider it an absolute green light?

MR. FLEISCHER: As I said earlier, in a question earlier, the
President, under the Constitution, has the authority, as
Commander-in-Chief, to exercise military options if he deems it's
necessary. Today the Congress, on behalf of the people, will also
speak and will send a very powerful message around the world that the
Congress agrees with the President and is passing a resolution to
authorize the use of force.

Q Ari, several of the Democrats who supported this resolution
have stressed that they're not comfortable with it because there are a
number of outstanding questions. Gephardt said last week, we're all
looking through a glass darkly. Daschle today listed five questions
that he has outstanding. I'm wondering, how does the President assess
the quality of the debate that's been on the Hill this week? And does
he think the White House bears any responsibility for unanswered
questions at this point, or does he think that's sort of the nature of
the subject matter?

MR. FLEISCHER: It clearly is the nature of the subject matter.
It's impossible for everybody to know every answer. I think before
World War II people could have made the same case, how can we know the
answer to every question being asked. What the President thinks it's
very, very healthy for the nation is that people are asking these
questions. It's the right thing to do, they ask the questions. But at
the end of the day, the questions are answered to the greatest degree
possible based on all information available, and then the voting
begins, and the people's representatives speak. And that's what's
happening today.

And the President thinks this is part of a great democracy that has
served our country very well for 225 years, because the executive and
the legislature address each other and work together, especially at
times like this. Listen, not a lot is happening in this Congress, not
a lot is getting passed. But today the Congress is speaking with one
voice in support of the President. And the President thinks that sends
a powerful message around the world.

Q Can I follow and ask you on trade promotion authority, a very
important vote for the President. He worked the phones very hard.
Several of his senior aides worked the phones. I'm wondering, A,
whether that's happened I this case, and B, whether the President is
planning some sort of ceremony where he brings in supporters to mark
the passage of these resolutions.

MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated earlier, we're observing the timing
of the votes in both the House and the Senate. And if we have any
additions to the schedule, we will keep you apprised.

This vote is not like the trade promotion authority vote. There --
early on, as you know, the President brought many members of the
Congress down to meet with him here at the White House, and I think
that the President's message, the President's leadership, and the
President's strength have helped create an environment where members of
Congress agreed with the arguments the President was making, and that's
showing up in the votes they are casting. And the President
appreciates that.

Typically where Presidents work the phones and get involved in the
last-minute lobbying is when a vote like trade promotion authority
would be a razor-thin margin. That's not the case here. But the
President has repeatedly -- and you've seen the meetings -- talked to
the leaders of the Congress about this, held his weekly breakfasts with
Congressman Gephardt and Senator Daschle, Senator Lott and Congressman
Hastert. And these meetings -- I said "weekly", these are sometimes
once every two or three weeks -- that's been helpful in the process.

But I think that what fundamentally has happened here is the
President's speech to the United Nations, the arguments that the
President made, and the determinations of members of Congress to
protect the American people from the gathering threat that Saddam
Hussein poses led to today's vote.

Q Ari, you said that the consequences for failure to comply must
be included in any U.N. resolution. Does that suggest that the U.S.
has decided that it will only accept one resolution, and that the only
question is what the language may be within it?

MR. FLEISCHER: Jim, nothing has changed. Our position remains one
resolution. We are urging them to act on one resolution in which the
consequences are made clear should Saddam Hussein fail to comply.

Q But you're not suggesting there's any change in position that
you would not accept two? You're not ruling out that, you're not
saying that the U.S. is now saying that it could not accept anything
other than its own position?

MR. FLEISCHER: I can only tell you what we are advocating, and
that is one resolution that has that clause in it.

Q And in the U.S. view -- the U.S. view is that it should be
included, not that it must be included.

MR. FLEISCHER: The consequence clause? No, the consequence clause
must be in it. The President has made that clear.

A resolution that was passed that failed to say that there were any
consequences is another excuse for Saddam Hussein to play games with
the world. That's why the President thinks it's so important for
consequences to be in there. After all, if the U.N. again says to
Saddam Hussein, you are in violation, we call on you to come into
compliance, and there's nothing else we have to say -- Saddam Hussein
would say, again, they're giving me more time to build up my weapons;
thank you. The President thinks the best way to make sure Saddam
Hussein understands the world is serious is for the world to be
serious. And to be serious, there must be an expression of
consequences.

Q Iraq threw out some offer today to have a U.S. delegation come
over and do inspections.

MR. FLEISCHER: Oh. Well, again, this matter is not up to Iraq.
Iraq had its say in 1991, when it signed an agreement to end the war
and pledged the conditions for the war's end. And those pledge
conditions included the destruction of its weapons of mass
destruction. And this is why, after 10 years of defiance by Saddam
Hussein, it is not up to Iraq to decide. It is, hopefully, up to the
United Nations to decide, so that the world can know that Saddam
Hussein has disarmed.

Q One last thing if I may. Homeland security doesn't look like
it's going to -- as you indicated. What can you do -- since this was a
fairly high priority for the administration -- what can you do in the
absence of new legislation creating the department to work on homeland
security in a way that not having a department wouldn't allow you to
do? I mean, where do you go from here?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it will be a setback if Congress doesn't pass
legislation to create the department of homeland security. It will
make it harder to protect the country. As I indicated, there are a
great many people in the existing agencies in their existing roles, who
are doing all they can to protect the country. What will be missing is
the ability to bring them all together under one roof, so they can work
off of each other to make us stronger. And that's what would be lost.

Unfortunately, there is nothing that can be done to bring these
agencies together in a legal sense without congressional action. You
can always have intergovernmental working groups, which we currently
have. Those are effective, but they can be made stronger. So it would
be a setback if Congress failed to act.

Q Ari, according to a published report, 15 of the 19 9/11
hijackers were issued visas that should have been denied under the
current U.S. law. Is this true, and is the President furious about
it? And what is he planning to do about it?

MR. FLEISCHER: I'd have to take a look at that report. If I
recall, of the hijackers that came into the country, most were able to
arrive into the country legally because we are an open system.

Q The Europeans have offered a deal on International Criminal
Court that would exempt U.S. military personnel and diplomats. Why is
that not enough?

MR. FLEISCHER: The United States continues to feel very strongly
that the International Criminal Court is not in the interests of the
United States, that as we learned in the aftermath of the Serbian
attacks on -- into Kosovo and to Bosnia, that there are existing
mechanisms that can be set up to make certain that people who engage in
criminal wrongdoing can be brought to justice. But under the ICC's
charter, people can be brought before a court even if they do not
subscribe to the International Criminal Court treaty. And the
President thinks that is a way that Americans will ultimately be
targeted, often for political reasons. And we will not and we do not
support that.

Q But the President's objections were that soldiers or diplomats
could be dragged before this court. If they are covered, who else --
what other Americans do you want covered under the -- exempted,
rather?

MR. FLEISCHER: There should be no American who would be subject to
an arbitrary court that could act for capricious reasons.

Q No Americans whatsoever?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.

Q Can I just ask a question about coalition building? There was
a sense a few weeks ago that the U.S. was willing to act against Iraq.
Then in the last few days we've seen that there would be no way that
the U.S. would act unilaterally because it had an ally in the U.K.
And now today you say that it would have a large coalition. Who else
is there that's going to be part of this large coalition if it doesn't
go the U.N. route?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that I'll let various nations speak
for themselves. There was a description earlier of the types of things
that people are hearing that other nations around the world may engage
in as part of a military coalition. But I think it's fair to say that
it would not be small, a coalition, that -- a coalition of the willing
to protect freedom. And the United States, the United Kingdom and
others have been working to talk to other nations about this. Again,
we hope that this will be done because the United Nations will act.
But there's no assurance. And so to assure the peace, the President
has said that if the U.N. fails to act, we will work with our
coalition.

Q You can't give us any more sense of who these others are?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's only proper to let other nations speak
for themselves. It's not the role of the American spokesman to do that
for other countries.